Patentability of Computer Programmes with Technical effect & Contribution: In Light of FeridAllani v. UOI

The issue of patentability of computer programmes has been fluxed with puzzlement since ages. Through this blog we will dig into the concept addressing the topic of patentability of computer programmes with technical effect and contribution and analyse the meaning behind the suffix ‘per se’ added to computer programmes in the patents act, 1970, in light of the recent judgment of Delhi High Court, in the case of FeridAllani v. UOI.

A computer programme is a set of instructions that enables the computer to function or perform a particular task. According to the Copyright Act, 1957, Computer Programme means a set of instructions exhibited through codes, words, schemes, etc., including a machine readable medium, which enables the computer to perform certain tasks or achieve particular result[i]. A Computer programme is categorized as a literary work, copyrightable under the Indian Copyrights act.[ii]

Section 3 of the Patent act, 1970 enlists non-patentable inventions or things which are not considered to be inventions and hence not patentable under the Indian regime. Patentability of ‘Computer programmes per se’, has been restricted according to ‘section 3(k)’ of the Patent Act.

The issue of patenting the inventions related to computer programmes or computer related inventions have been clouded with puzzlement since decades. The legislature, since the proposal of patents( second amendment) bill 1999 and insertion of the term ‘per se’ after ‘computer programmes’ has tried to un-puzzle the whole scenario.

In the report of RajyaSabha on the Patents ( Second Amendment) Bill, 1999, it was clarified that the insertion of ‘per se’ post ‘computer programmes’ was done, so as to ensure that the computer related inventions are not rejected the grant of patent protection.

It was clearly stated that,

“In the new proposed clause (k) the words ”per se” have been inserted. This change has been proposed because sometimes the computer programme may include certain other things, ancillary thereto or developed thereon. The intention here is not to reject them for grant of patent if they are inventions. However, the computer programmes as such are not intended to be granted patent. This amendment has been proposed to clarify the purpose.[iii]

The term ‘per se’ is not defined specifically in the patents or copyrights act. However, ‘per se’ literally means, ‘by itself’, or ‘in itself’ or ‘intrinsically’. The definition of ‘per se’ in relation to computer programmes, thus indicates that computer programmes in itself and by its own is not patentable and not in connection to other things thereof.[iv]

The patents ( amendment ) Ordinance, 2004 brought upon a proposal to amend and add upon the phrase, ‘a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware’ in section 3(k), which was rejected by the 2005 amendment act, on the ground that it would give rise to the monopoly of multinationals.[v]

Draft manual on patent practice and procedure, 2005, further brought upon a 14 page annexure containing the provisions relating to Computer Related Inventions (CRI’s), followed by Draft manual 2008 and 2011.

Thereafter, in the year 2013, the first draft was prepared specifically with regard to the ‘Computer Related Inventions ( CRI’S)’, followed by the 2015 CRI guidelines, 2016 Guidelines and the revised guidelines for examination of CRI’s, 2017.

According to the 2017 CRI guidelines, Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) encompass inventions that entail the use of computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus and also the inventions which involve features realised either wholly or partially by means of computer or other programmes.

The 2017 guidelines brought some amount of clarification with respect to exclusions expected under section 3(k) of the Patents act, 1970, so as to ensure speedy redressal of the patent applications related to            CRI’s. It emphasised upon the legislative intent of Joint committee on patent (second amendment) bill, 1999, for attaching the suffix ‘per se’ to computer programmes. Further, in the guideline it was particularly stated that, Computer programmes are often claimed in the form of systemor method claims with some means indicating the functions of process steps and flow charts. The claims in substance, like method/process, apparatus/system/device, computer program product/ computer readable medium should not belong to the excluded categories and the focus while patenting should be on the underlying substance and not the particular form in which it is claimed.

The recent judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of FeridAllani v. Union of India[vi] proved to be a cutting edge decision on patentability of computer programmes with technical effect and advancement. In this case, a writ petition was filed against the order of IPAB, wherein it dismissed an appeal against the order of patent office who rejected their patent application on the ground that it was being hit by section 3(k) of the patent act, 1970. The high Court in this case considered the appeal of the petitioners and the three guidelines on CRI’s and held that, “the bar on patenting was with ‘computer programs per se’ specifically and not on all inventions based upon computer program. It further emphasised on the point that, in today’s digital world wherein almost all the inventions such as automobiles, microwaves, cars, mobiles etc., and innovation such as artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies, are based upon computer programs, it would be retrograding to hedge such inventions from patentability. Furthermore, the words ‘per se’ were incorporated to ensure that patentability of genuine inventions developed and based on computer programs was not impeded.”

The court in this case further allowed the writ petition and declared thatwhen an invention demonstrates a ‘technical effect’ or a ‘technical contribution’ it is patentable, even though based upon a computer program. Further, the court directed the petitioner’s patent application to be re-examined in light of the CRI guidelines and established judicial precedents, within a period of two months. 

Conclusion: Therefore, wherein the computer programme includes things developed further upon or ancillary thereto, and demonstrates a technical effect or technical contribution, then it can be patentable. The guidelines on CRIs and established judicial precedents like in the case of FeridAllaniv. UOI, shall be taken into consideration while dealing with such patent applications.

Author:  Vartika Prasad, 5th-year student of Amity Law School, Noida, and intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at aishani@khuranaandkhurana.com.

References:

[i]Section 2(ffc). The Copyright Act, 1957

[ii]Section 2(o). The Copyright act, 1957

[iii]Patents ( Second Amendment) bill, 1999. Report of Joint Committee.

[iv]Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), 2017.

[v]The Ping-Ponging Paradigm of Patenting Computer Programmes in India (“Software Patenting” 1999-2020)by Swaraj Paul Barooah February 12, 2020. Access from: https://spicyip.com/2020/02/the-ping-ponging-paradigm-of-patenting-computer-programmes-in-india-software-patenting-1999-2020.html

[vi]W.P.(C) 7/2014 and CM APPL. 40736/2019

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010